Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <5ED7033D.7020009@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:56:13 +0800
From:   Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.2; zh-CN; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
CC:     <ira.weiny@intel.com>, <fstests@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/XXX: Add xfs/XXX
References: <20200413054419.1560503-1-ira.weiny@intel.com> <20200413163025.GB6742@magnolia> <5ED61324.6010300@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200602181444.GD8230@magnolia>
In-Reply-To: <20200602181444.GD8230@magnolia>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020/6/3 2:14, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:51:48PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
>> On 2020/4/14 0:30, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> This might be a good time to introduce a few new helpers:
>>>
>>> _require_scratch_dax ("Does $SCRATCH_DEV support DAX?")
>>> _require_scratch_dax_mountopt ("Does the fs support the DAX mount options?")
>>> _require_scratch_daX_iflag ("Does the fs support FS_XFLAG_DAX?")
>> Hi Darrick,
>>
>> Now, I am trying to introduce these new helpers and have some questions:
>> 1) There are five testcases related to old dax implementation, should we
>> only convert them to new dax implementation or make them compatible with old
>> and new dax implementation?
>
> What is the 'old' DAX implementation?  ext2 XIP?
Hi Darrick,

Thanks for your quick feedback.

Right, the 'old' DAX implementation means old dax mount option(i.e. -o dax)

Compare new and old dax mount option on ext4 and xfs, is the following 
logic right?
-o dax=always == -o dax
-o dax=never == without dax
-o dax=inode == nothing

Of course, we should uses new option if ext4/xfs supports new dax mount 
option on distros.  But should we fallback to use old option if ext4/xfs 
doesn't support new dax mount option on some old distros?
btw:
it seems hard for testcases to use two different sets of mount 
options(i.e. old and new) so do you have any suggestion?

>
>> 2) I think _require_xfs_io_command "chattr" "x" is enough to check if fs
>> supports FS_XFLAG_DAX.  Is it necessary to add _require_scratch_dax_iflag()?
>> like this:
>> _require_scratch_dax_iflag()
>> {
>> 	_require_xfs_io_command "chattr" "x"
>> }
>
> I suggested that list based on the major control knobs that will be
> visible to userspace programs.  Even if this is just a one-line helper,
> its name is useful for recognizing which of those knobs we're looking
> for.
>
> Yes, you could probably save a trivial amount of time by skipping one
> iteration of bash function calling, but now everyone has to remember
> that the xfs_io chattr "x" flag means the dax inode flag, and not
> confuse it for chmod +x or something else.

Got it, thanks for your detailed explanation.

Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
>
> --D
>
>> Best Regards,
>> Xiao Yang
>>
>>
>
>
> .
>